Why are things immune to crits?

[hong]

News to me. I must have missed the section of the PHB that requires all players to watch a bunch of movies (all the same movies, of course) and then base all of their gaming around that experience.

You don't actually have a clue what you're talking about, do you?


Hong "not that there's anything wrong with that" Ooi

 

[Felon]

Aw, sure he does. He's using sarcasm to demonstrate that he has no clue what the other guy is going on about.

 

[Silverglass]

My 3.0 DMG is pretty clear about emphasizing defeating "monsters and traps" as the key issues when awarding XP. Sneaking past a monster is said to be "trickier", and up to the DM to "make such judgements". Puzzles, social situations, good ideas, and roleplay, are all in the "Variant: Story Awards" section, not part of the core rules.

Which is exactly what I said. The original post said "combat" whereas the DMG says that you do not have to kill something to defeat it. I said a challenge "could be" a puzzle or social encounter and that the DM "can award" xp for roleplay etc. I used those words rather than "is" and "does" because they are a variant in the core rules, and bonus xp for roleplay is a very widely used one.

But even if you limit everything to combat related encounters and traps my example of shepherds driving off wolves or an attempted mugging in an alley are both exact examples of gaining combat related xp.

What you're saying directly contradicts the sample settlement calculations on 3.0 DMG p. 140.

True, but I said "realistic" because the sample settlement calculations in the DMG are not that realistic, but anything else would take up too much space and too much calculation for something that is often not of great importance to game flow. The idea that someone would be no better at their craft or profession skill after 20 years than when they started adult life is obviously a flawed one and not "realistic".

Without my DMG with me I cannot check but I don't remember the DMG precluding higher level NPC's or explaining how they got to those higher levels. If 75% of the population is 1st level and 25% is second that doesn't invalidate my point, it just means that only about 1 in 4 adults survives long enough to gain the 1000xp to reach 2nd level. In a dangerous locale experience is earned faster but mortality rates are higher so you probably end up with the same proportion of leveled NPC's as some safe village but in the latter the 2nd level people are older because it takes longer to level up. This variability is why I used term such as middle-aged and old as that covers a range of ages.

We understand that as people work at their profession they get "better" at it. A blacksmith just starting out has demonstrably less skill than one who has been practicing the craft for 20 years. In D&D that can only be reflected by an increase in skill ranks, which in turn is only granted by level gains. Therefore if a 20 year old blacksmith is a level 1 expert then a 50 year old blacksmith must be a level >1 expert as that is the only way the rules can reflect their greater skill after years of experience.

Obviously someone who has confronted opponents wishing them harm garners xp, but that should not stop someone improving their skills over the years because they never got into a fight. Fortunately the DMG contains a variant that allows you to award xp for non-combat related challenges and this is what a DM should be doing for NPC's because it is a mechanism within the rules that lets NPC's become better at their profession over the years.

 

[jessemock]

You don't actually have a clue what you're talking about, do you?


Hong "not that there's anything wrong with that" Ooi

Tell you what: let's say I don't. Why don't you get into it and tell me where it's at?

 

[Marius Delphus]

That doesn't make it a critical hit, though.

A flaming burst, for example, will still only trigger on a confirmed attack roll within the threat range of the axe.

Good point. Has it ever been decided whether immunity to critical hits (which certainly negates critical damage) confers immunity to critical hit side-effects? Or is that basically "up to your DM" at this point?

[EDIT] The SRD has the following to say:

Some weapon qualities and some specific weapons have an extra effect on a critical hit. This special effect functions against creatures not subject to critical hits, such as undead, elementals, and constructs. When fighting against such creatures, roll for critical hits as you would against humanoids or any other creature subject to critical hits. On a successful critical roll, apply the special effect, but do not multiply the weapon’s regular damage.

... so maybe we can pretend that is true against objects as well; if so, that answers my question. [/EDIT]

 

[dcollins]

Fortunately the DMG contains a variant that allows you to award xp for non-combat related challenges and this is what a DM should be doing for NPC's because it is a mechanism within the rules that lets NPC's become better at their profession over the years.

Saying that all DM's "should" be using a certain variant rule, interpreting it in a brand new way for NPC's, and then labelling actual core rules that don't do that "unrealistic" is a totally untenable argument.

 

[dark2112]

Saying that all DM's "should" be using a certain variant rule, interpreting it in a brand new way for NPC's, and then labelling actual core rules that don't do that "unrealistic" is a totally untenable argument.

Yet allowing the rules lawyers of the world to justify why everyone you meet is no higher level than 3rd, regardless of age, is something we should all do, right? I find it highly suspect that people can become so immersed into a fantasy world that they can casually ignore that they're infinitely more powerful than the average joe - yet there's always hundreds more challenges for them to face, every day. Odd, that. You'd figure that if there were that many powerful bad things, and that few heroes to save the day, that the world would have been overrun long ago.

The way I run games (and this is by no means the 'right' way, it's just 'my' way), PC's are heroes, yes. That's why they roll 4d6 instead of 3d6 for stats. Putting a cap on NPC levels IMO is ridiculous, as it implies that everyone who isn't a PC is somehow lacking, whether they develop PC levels or not.

No, a 20th lvl commoner shouldn't be something you encounter very often, but why couldn't a devoted elven court servant, who's served dozens of human kings in his 600 years of life have achieved 20 levels as a commoner? Changing classes does still incur an xp penalty if it's not your favored and it's more than 1 level apart. If our venerated elf here gained a couple of levels as a commoner, since his favored class is wizard, why would he switch to aristocrat? Especially since he's a servant. *shrugs* Better yet, why would he be 2nd or 3rd level, after all those centuries?

Certain things, although in the rules, often have to be ignored in order to maintain a believable functionality within the campaign world being used. If in your game it's quite believeable that you're more powerful than kings and can take on whole armies of commoners (since that's all they have) at 6th level, fine. Personally, I like a campaign world that I can play in from level 1 until level 100, if I so wish, and still have a high level of challenge.

 

[dcollins]

...why couldn't a devoted elven court servant, who's served dozens of human kings in his 600 years of life have achieved 20 levels as a commoner?

How about this: because if, after a few centuries, the elf couldn't get good at anything in particular, one of those line of kings really ought to fire his sorry posterior. As in: "People! I need a court wizard, like a normal D&D king, not some doofus with 20 ranks in Use Rope. What do I pay you people for!?"

Get rid of the 3E do-nothing commoner class and these issues make more sense.

 

[dark2112]

How about this: because if, after a few centuries, the elf couldn't get good at anything in particular, one of those line of kings really ought to fire his sorry posterior. As in: "People! I need a court wizard, like a normal D&D king, not some doofus with 20 ranks in Use Rope. What do I pay you people for!?"

Get rid of the 3E do-nothing commoner class and these issues make more sense.

Meh. Not everyone casts spells and slays dragons. Some people, y'know, farm. What class should the sheepherders and farmers of the world be? Perhaps my elven court dude wasn't a prime example, but you should still see my point.

 

[dcollins]

What class should the sheepherders and farmers of the world be?

They should be unclassed, along with infants and children, as in prior versions of D&D. When someone picks up skill in something heroic or expertise-driven, then they should get an appropriate D&D class.